I went to Afghanistan twice. On the ground, with a rifle, patroling for an enemy.

Frankly, Afghanistan proves the point that you will always need to put someone on the ground. You can hide from planes, you can mix in with the local population to defeat ISR platforms, but if you physically occupy space on the ground, you prevent the enemy from accomplishing their goals.

Afghanistan shows what happens when you DON'T put troops on the ground. The Bush administration tried to fight it with fighters and drones, only to find out they were failing because they simply couldn't deny the enemy the freedom to move. Hence the drawdown in Iraq and the surge in to Afghanistan in 2008-2010.

To ask someone on the inside. Are we doing things differently than the Russians did? Or are we going to have the same result? I'm just curious what the ground troops think.

To the op question: I think the real question is should we decrease the scope of the military. As it stands now, I think the military is underpowered for its current scope. It's not being put in a position where it can win. It's only in a position where it can make mistakes. Until we decrease the scope we shouldn't talk about decreasing the size. That's just my opinion.

Aside from some minor incidents in WWII, the continental U.S. hasn't been attacked by another country since 1848.

I don't seen a need for such a vast number of ground troops in today's world.Ground forces are becoming obsolete IMO. I believe the threat of nuclear deterrence is much more effective than any standing army.

I definitely think that technology spending is important, but I believe having 1,500,000 active personnel to be completely unnecessary.

Thoughts?

We thought the same thing in Korea. No matter how much air and naval power you project, you need boots on the ground. See: Desert Storm, OIF/OEF, Kosovo.

__________________
"Chic-Fi-La has an awful chicken sandwich"

-Said nobody, ever.

"Originally posted by drgonzo: That doesn't make sense, the people with the most interaction and dependence on government have the most significant stakes and should have the vote if anyone. People who reject government and do not use government services should be denied the vote if anything." ^^FAIL

"Originally posted by Rebeltilldeath3: When I think geocities I think ****ty tiled background and sparkly titles. Think of a minority's myspace page."

Don't get the rules of engagement confused with what you think. How do you think the US won it's independance? Guerrilla warfare. How do you think we haven't won in Afghan...because we don't use that **** and they do. Take the gloves off and get bloody.

Don't get the rules of engagement confused with what you think. How do you think the US won it's independance? Guerrilla warfare. How do you think we haven't won in Afghan...because we don't use that **** and they do. Take the gloves off and get bloody.

Well we are never going to "take off our gloves", so yes that renders the troops pretty much useless. Which bringsis up theto question, why have so many troops if they can't be used effectively.

The troops capabilities don't matter if you can't use them.

__________________
"Originally posted by ']TSS[ Dake: Is anything really TMI in ST:F at this point?"

So for limited engagements we should always use the nuclear option as a fall back plan after our new weaker military is overwhelmed? Why not just keep a strong military that doesn't get overwhelmed and drastically reduces the need to ever use nuclear options. It's the last thing other countries want as well, however they know the limits to which we won't use them.

__________________
"Chic-Fi-La has an awful chicken sandwich"

-Said nobody, ever.

"Originally posted by drgonzo: That doesn't make sense, the people with the most interaction and dependence on government have the most significant stakes and should have the vote if anyone. People who reject government and do not use government services should be denied the vote if anything." ^^FAIL

"Originally posted by Rebeltilldeath3: When I think geocities I think ****ty tiled background and sparkly titles. Think of a minority's myspace page."

So for limited engagements we should always use the nuclear option as a fall back plan after our new weaker military is overwhelmed? Why not just keep a strong military that doesn't get overwhelmed and drastically reduces the need to ever use nuclear options. It's the last thing other countries want as well, however they know the limits to which we won't use them.

So for limited engagements we should always use the nuclear option as a fall back plan after our new weaker military is overwhelmed? Why not just keep a strong military that doesn't get overwhelmed and drastically reduces the need to ever use nuclear options. It's the last thing other countries want as well, however they know the limits to which we won't use them.

overwhelmed how? where? Our navy can kick the **** out of the rest of the world, combined, and the only other two countries on our continent are either unable to even conquer themselves or our best buds.

I have no problem with having a military capable of asserting our foreign policy objectives, but stop acting we need what we have for "defense"

"Originally posted by drgonzo: That doesn't make sense, the people with the most interaction and dependence on government have the most significant stakes and should have the vote if anyone. People who reject government and do not use government services should be denied the vote if anything." ^^FAIL

"Originally posted by Rebeltilldeath3: When I think geocities I think ****ty tiled background and sparkly titles. Think of a minority's myspace page."

How much you give to federal government in taxes against how much you receive in aid from them. Essentially net transfers from blue states to red ones.

derp

Essentially this:

__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads

How much you give to federal government in taxes against how much you receive in aid from them. Essentially net transfers from blue states to red ones.

derp

Well you got me on that one. Misunderstood what you were talking about(probably should have read the links in the previous post).

edit: And to bring this thread back on topic....Snake13, I think we do need what we have for defense. Are we using a lot of it for defense? Nope. But just having the technology and firepower that we have is our defense. No one wants to mess with us when we have the weapons we have.

__________________Faith can move mountains, but it can't beat a faster draw.